Chatting with Playwright Rich Orloff… on Relevance.

What is the value of relevance?

As an arts marketer, I believe that relevance is the mandatory price of admission to an audience’s attention. That which is irrelevant is routinely ignored or discarded.  And for artists and arts organizations, relevance is the essential fuel of viability – the spark that ignites recognition, appreciation, attendance, support, discussion and opportunities for advancement. Nobody aspires to irrelevance.

But not everybody sees relevance as the “holy grail” as I do – and I’m grateful to be able to share a thoughtful discussion on the topic with someone with impeccable relevance credentials – whose new play was just praised by the New York Times with the words, “You can’t beat this play… for topicality.”

I’m very grateful to him for the opportunity to engage in this discussion…

———

Playwright Rich Orloff contends that there are many reasons why folks go to the theater. He says, “One the main reasons I go is to have fun.  I’m not sure how relevant most musical comedies are, but they sure can be fun.  Is NOISES OFF relevant?  Who cares, I’m too busy laughing.”

Viewed with 20/20 hindsight, his play CHATTING WITH THE TEA PARTY seemed clearly destined for relevance when he wrote it in 2012.   Following a process of readings in fifteen theatres around the country over nearly two years, the show made its New York Off-Off-Broadway premier to rave reviews in February, 2016.

• ML:                 Congratulations on the success of CHATTING WITH THE TEA PARTY. The response has been amazing. Is it fair to say that you’ve caught “lightening in a bottle?” What it is that you caught?
• RO:                  It’s been a great experience to watch audiences respond to the play. I think what makes the play special is that it provides a level of intimacy in politics that we’re not used to when observing people who aren’t “us”. Liberals in the audience are getting a meaningful three-dimensional look at people in the Tea Party. And I’ve been gratified that Tea Party people who have seen the play are genuinely grateful for being portrayed as multidimensional.

• ML:                  So, what does “relevance” mean to you?
• RO:                  I’ve learned a lot from the experience of CHATTING WITH THE TEA PARTY. I’ve come to see relevance in two dimensions. First is topical – being in the news or connected in some obvious way. The second is deeper: ,  As a country, we are clearly wrestling with some profound political questions. The kind of relevance that matters to me is about more than just mentioning an issue – it’s about providing a meaningful forum to inform and expand that discussion.

• ML:                  So does that mean you see “relevance” as being the essential or ultimate purpose of the art of theatre?
• RO:                  Absolutely not! As someone who generally writes comedies (CHATTING WITH THE TEA PARTY being an exception), I often think that non-profit theaters’ search for relevance has led to many timely but trivial works of art, as non-profit institutions attempt to “justify” themselves.  I’m not against relevance; it’s one of many qualities that can add up to a satisfying theatrical experience.  But more than anything, I just want to be taken on a ride.

• ML:                  The New York Times gave a great review to the Off Off Broadway production of Chatting with the Tea Party (2/4/16), but I was especially interested in the reader comments attached to that review. One person wrote, “It’s hard to see what could possibly be entertaining or enlightening about trying to reason with intractably stupid and ignorant people.” I was very surprised (and sort of delighted) to discover that YOU replied directly with an online comment that spoke to your motivation in writing the play to find out more of the story of the people in the Tea Party. To see a playwright engaged in such a “frontline” discussion about their own play is unexpected – yet it also seems appropriate given this particular subject matter. Do you agree? What does that say about the relevance of this play?
• RO:                  I’ve actually never looked at the on-line comments to a review before. You’re right; this was different. The comment was an opportunity. The writer made assumptions about why I wrote the play that were incorrect. It felt appropriate to channel that skepticism back into the piece of theatre itself. It’s an atypical play; it deserves an atypical experience.

• ML:                  Did you start the project expecting that it would result in a piece that would coincide with the rise of that movement or even the 2016 Presidential campaign
• RO:                  I set out with no mission, just curiosity. Indeed, plays with “missions” usually turn me off, as I sense the playwright is telling me how I should think.

The notion for the play arose from an argument at a 2010 Thanksgiving dinner, when the Tea Party was first showing its strength. None of us, including myself, knew anyone in the Tea Party, and I became very aware of my own ignorance.

So in 2011 and 2012, I started traveling around the country conducting interviews. I just wanted to ask all sorts of nosy questions. “Hey, who are you? What are you like? If I shove some facts in your face, how will you respond?” In the beginning, it was just an experiment, an adventure.

• ML:                  So you didn’t write the play with a specific mission in mind?
• RO:                  Not at all. But the more I got to really know the people I interviewed, often in conversations of 2 to 4 hours, the more they transformed from stereotypes to complex individuals.   By asking questions, I began to notice how limited we are in how we speak with people with whom we disagree. I wrote the play because it’s fun to disturb the status quo. I thought it would be interesting to make liberals question their own beliefs. The play is a docu-drama that reveals my own journey. I invite audiences to take that journey, too. There’s a lot to digest afterwards.

• ML:                  As a playwright, I imagine you’re always on the lookout for meaty conflict and compelling stories. True?
• RO:                  False. I’ve never found a single play by looking for that. The process is more like falling in love. There are just moments in time when something clicks – an article, something someone says – and there’s a beautiful visitation. I don’t go looking for ideas, but when they come to me, I write them down and put them in a file drawer and see if they grow.

• ML:                  Okay, I believe you. But now that you’ve achieved this success, are you tempted to want to repeat it? You know, there’s a quote attributed to hockey great Wayne Gretzky in which he says that his prodigious scoring was because he would not skate to where the puck was – but where it was going to be. Do you think you now have the key to finding relevance? Would you advise aspiring artists to google “major trends in…” as a way to look for relevant story ideas for the future?
• RO:                  It just doesn’t work like that for me. In 2012, I didn’t know that the Tea Party would be a force; it certainly transformed over time. My advice to aspiring artists would be to avoid explicitly pursuing relevance at all costs! I could not have written Chatting With the Tea Party if it wasn’t an authentic personal journey and if I wasn’t passionate about the adventure, including the exasperating moments. Writing a play is a huge undertaking. I’ve invested 4 years in this one.

My advice to aspiring playwrights is simply this, “Write the play you can’t help but write.” Don’t try to anticipate the marketplace. Finding relevance is more like falling in love – you don’t start with a concrete list of expectations.

I’ve sat through too many plays that were intellectually interesting but lacking the beautiful life force that animates the best plays. For both the playwright and the audience, the essence of relevance lies in the answer to this question: “Do I really want to have this adventure?”

# # #